will this fly?

What would be the effect of a thin layer of ice on a parachute canopy?
There are no aerodynamics other than pure drag. This does not even consider
that the trip down is going to be pretty quick anyway. Also the constant
flexing of the canopy is going to shed any layers that amounted to anything,
just like deicing boots. I'll wave to you on my way down!

"Matthew S. Whiting" wrote in message
...
Dan Thompson wrote:
The nice thing about a Cirrus is also you could always (i.e., once) pop
the
chute if the TKS couldn't keep up. I would think this would be
comforting
when choosing to fly through a what was believed to be little known ice
that
the TKS system should be able to easily handle, just in case you found
it is
was more ice than anyone would have expected and you ran out of other
options. I think the TKS/chute combo would allow a lot of flights that
would keep me on the ground otherwise.

Not me. I really doubt that the BRS chute has been tested in icing
conditions. I don't want to be the test pilot for it. I suspect a
parachute could pick up a LOT of ice in a hurry given its surface area.
You might come down a lot faster than you think.


Matt

Not to pick on Dan personally but the "If I get into trouble I'll pull the
lever" thing has just got to be part of the reason why Cirrus CFIT rates are
so high. Yeah it's great to have the option when your engine quits over the
mountains at night or a wing snaps off, but there are plenty of ways to kill
yourself that the 'chute won't do anything to prevent.

-cwk.

"Dan Thompson" wrote in message
gy.com...
The nice thing about a Cirrus is also you could always (i.e., once) pop
the
chute if the TKS couldn't keep up. I would think this would be comforting
when choosing to fly through a what was believed to be little known ice
that
the TKS system should be able to easily handle, just in case you found it
is
was more ice than anyone would have expected and you ran out of other
options. I think the TKS/chute combo would allow a lot of flights that
would keep me on the ground otherwise.

How is it that having a chute could have a causal connection to accidentally
flying the airplane into a mountain? Or blowing the altitude on an
instrument approach? Or any other CFIT scenario? Also I challenge your
statement that the "CFIT rates are so high" for Cirrus. I have heard that
there are only a 1000 Cirrus's flying so far, so I can't see how there would
be any reasonable conclusion that could be made yet due to too few data
points.


"Colin Kingsbury" wrote in message
nk.net...
Not to pick on Dan personally but the "If I get into trouble I'll pull the
lever" thing has just got to be part of the reason why Cirrus CFIT rates
are
so high. Yeah it's great to have the option when your engine quits over
the
mountains at night or a wing snaps off, but there are plenty of ways to
kill
yourself that the 'chute won't do anything to prevent.

-cwk.

"Dan Thompson" wrote in message
gy.com...
The nice thing about a Cirrus is also you could always (i.e., once) pop
the
chute if the TKS couldn't keep up. I would think this would be
comforting
when choosing to fly through a what was believed to be little known ice
that
the TKS system should be able to easily handle, just in case you found
it
is
was more ice than anyone would have expected and you ran out of other
options. I think the TKS/chute combo would allow a lot of flights that
would keep me on the ground otherwise.

Dan Thompson wrote:
What would be the effect of a thin layer of ice on a parachute canopy?
There are no aerodynamics other than pure drag. This does not even consider
that the trip down is going to be pretty quick anyway. Also the constant
flexing of the canopy is going to shed any layers that amounted to anything,
just like deicing boots. I'll wave to you on my way down!

I don't know that there would be any aerodynamic impact, I was thinking
more of weight. I've never seen a round canopy up close and personal.
Are you sure they flex all that much? I can around the periphery where
the cords attach and the air is spilling out, but I suspect that the
middle half or more of the canopy is pretty rigid once filled with air
and stable.


Matt

Roy Smith wrote:
We just don't know enough about icing to be sure when or where it's
going to occur.

"Matthew S. Whiting" wrote:
We don't know enough to know where it is likely to occur as you say.

That's not quite what I said. You dropped the word "sure" and added the
word "likely", which changes the meaning significantly. We do know
enough to forecast where it's *likely*, we just don't know enough to
forecast where it is *certain* to happen.

but the FAA will play it very conservative and forecast
anywhere that there is the slightest possibility of icing.

Actually, I believe it's the National Weather Service, not the FAA, who
issues icing forecasts.

This greatly
reduces the operational flexibility of many types of aircraft during
many parts of the country for a good portion of the year. I think it is
much better to let the pilot take a look and retreat if necessary.

Well, you would say that it's the law that limits the operational
flexibility. I would say it's not so much the law as the threat of
icing itself. It's the old physics vs. legislation issue. You can pass
any law you want, but you can't repeal gravity.

The libertarian in me wants to agree with you to a certain extent; as
long as you're not for hire, and not carrying pax, and can assure you
won't hurt anybody on the ground when you crash down on them, I don't
see any reason why you shouldn't be allowed to take a chance and see
what happens.

Other than that, it's all a matter of degree. Where do you draw the
line? You say the FAA is very conservative, and I'll agree with you
there. But, given what I said above about our inability to repeal
gravity, I think that's the right way to be.

"Roy Smith" wrote in message
...
Roy Smith wrote:
We just don't know enough about icing to be sure when or where it's
going to occur.

"Matthew S. Whiting" wrote:
We don't know enough to know where it is likely to occur as you say.

That's not quite what I said. You dropped the word "sure" and added the
word "likely", which changes the meaning significantly. We do know
enough to forecast where it's *likely*, we just don't know enough to
forecast where it is *certain* to happen.

but the FAA will play it very conservative and forecast
anywhere that there is the slightest possibility of icing.

Actually, I believe it's the National Weather Service, not the FAA, who
issues icing forecasts.

This greatly
reduces the operational flexibility of many types of aircraft during
many parts of the country for a good portion of the year. I think it is
much better to let the pilot take a look and retreat if necessary.

Well, you would say that it's the law that limits the operational
flexibility. I would say it's not so much the law as the threat of
icing itself. It's the old physics vs. legislation issue. You can pass
any law you want, but you can't repeal gravity.

The libertarian in me wants to agree with you to a certain extent; as
long as you're not for hire, and not carrying pax, and can assure you
won't hurt anybody on the ground when you crash down on them, I don't
see any reason why you shouldn't be allowed to take a chance and see
what happens.


I agree with Roy here, I would like everybody to be permitted to evaluate
and take risks as they see fit but there is the issue of people on the
ground.

On the issue of icing forecasts, my experience (mostly western US), is that
there is almost always ice when it is forecast.. I can not think of a
single flight where icing was forecast and there was no icing. It may not
be forming every second at every altitude but if you fly 100nm in cloud and
icing is forecast then you will find ice. There are also a lot a senarios
where you will find icing below -20C in the West so the whole notion of
"climbing above the ice is a falicy around here (unless you have a jet).
I'm sure that there are places where it is possible to climb above the ice
in a prop driven airplane on a consistant basis but not around here.

Mike
MU-2

Roy Smith wrote:
Roy Smith wrote:

We just don't know enough about icing to be sure when or where it's
going to occur.


"Matthew S. Whiting" wrote:

We don't know enough to know where it is likely to occur as you say.


That's not quite what I said. You dropped the word "sure" and added the
word "likely", which changes the meaning significantly. We do know
enough to forecast where it's *likely*, we just don't know enough to
forecast where it is *certain* to happen.

Which makes it even more ludicrous to prevent a pilot taking a look.



but the FAA will play it very conservative and forecast
anywhere that there is the slightest possibility of icing.


Actually, I believe it's the National Weather Service, not the FAA, who
issues icing forecasts.

I believe it is the FAA, in the form of the FSS, that promulgates the
forecasts though and thus endorses them, de facto at the very least.



This greatly
reduces the operational flexibility of many types of aircraft during
many parts of the country for a good portion of the year. I think it is
much better to let the pilot take a look and retreat if necessary.


Well, you would say that it's the law that limits the operational
flexibility. I would say it's not so much the law as the threat of
icing itself. It's the old physics vs. legislation issue. You can pass
any law you want, but you can't repeal gravity.

Physics prevents flying in ice, but the law prevents going out and
having a look in a area with icing forecasts, right? At least I believe
that is what you were saying. You've conveniently clipped out your
original text so I can't easily see what you wrote. Physics doesn't
prevent taking a look see.


The libertarian in me wants to agree with you to a certain extent; as
long as you're not for hire, and not carrying pax, and can assure you
won't hurt anybody on the ground when you crash down on them, I don't
see any reason why you shouldn't be allowed to take a chance and see
what happens.

Flying a single engine airplane at all requires taking chances. I flew
a lot of IFR flights in the northeast and have encountered ice several
times. Only one of which was of any significant concern. Icing is like
thunderstorms. You have to respect it and avoid it, but you don't stop
flying because of an imperfect forecast.


Other than that, it's all a matter of degree. Where do you draw the
line? You say the FAA is very conservative, and I'll agree with you
there. But, given what I said above about our inability to repeal
gravity, I think that's the right way to be.

I disagree. All flying involves risks. Flying in the northeast
involves the risk of an ice encounter. My experience is that at least 9
times out of 10, the ice never materializes. And the times I have
encountered ice, it was easy to find an exit. Only once, downwind of
Lake Erie at night, did I have a really nasty encounter ... and this
wasn't forecast! I picked up better than an inch of ice on my Skylane
in less than 5 minutes. Took full throttle to maintain 110 MPH and I
had to make a slow descent to 9,000 (entered the ice at 11,000) in order
to maintain altitude at that airspeed. Fortunately, the ice accretion
stopped at 9,000 and I carried most of that ice all the way home to ELM.
Made quite a racket as some it came off on the approach (it was 40 on
the ground).

I'm not suggesting that anyone force a pilot to fly when ice is a
possibility, but I also think it unwise to prevent a pilot from taking a
look when conditions are appropriate. Obviously, I'm not talking about
taking off in freezing rain or something insane like that. I'm talking
the normal rime ice conditions that prevail in much of the northeast for
much of the winter.


Matt

Mike Rapoport wrote:
"Roy Smith" wrote in message
...

Roy Smith wrote:

We just don't know enough about icing to be sure when or where it's
going to occur.

"Matthew S. Whiting" wrote:

We don't know enough to know where it is likely to occur as you say.

That's not quite what I said. You dropped the word "sure" and added the
word "likely", which changes the meaning significantly. We do know
enough to forecast where it's *likely*, we just don't know enough to
forecast where it is *certain* to happen.


but the FAA will play it very conservative and forecast
anywhere that there is the slightest possibility of icing.

Actually, I believe it's the National Weather Service, not the FAA, who
issues icing forecasts.


This greatly
reduces the operational flexibility of many types of aircraft during
many parts of the country for a good portion of the year. I think it is
much better to let the pilot take a look and retreat if necessary.

Well, you would say that it's the law that limits the operational
flexibility. I would say it's not so much the law as the threat of
icing itself. It's the old physics vs. legislation issue. You can pass
any law you want, but you can't repeal gravity.

The libertarian in me wants to agree with you to a certain extent; as
long as you're not for hire, and not carrying pax, and can assure you
won't hurt anybody on the ground when you crash down on them, I don't
see any reason why you shouldn't be allowed to take a chance and see
what happens.



I agree with Roy here, I would like everybody to be permitted to evaluate
and take risks as they see fit but there is the issue of people on the
ground.

Icing is typically pretty low on the list of reasons that airplanes come
to earth in unplanned locations. Fuel mismanagement, engine failure,
etc. all rank higher. Do you and Roy think we should require every
flight to have an independent inspection of the fuel onboard before
departure? That would lower the risk to folks on the ground much more
than worrying about icing.


Matt

In article , Roy Smith
writes:

This greatly
reduces the operational flexibility of many types of aircraft during
many parts of the country for a good portion of the year. I think it is
much better to let the pilot take a look and retreat if necessary.


The part that bothers me, if I understand this disucssion, is the problem of
legally filing(and opening) an IFR flight plan in my Archer when there is
forcast icing. I generally file IFR when I am flying "out of my home area".
Sure does help with the TFRs and hot MOAs the pop up. In the winter I can
still avoid flying in the clouds or do so briefly thru thin layers to fly in
VMC. It is my choice to fly safely in the winter and filing IFR improves my
safety when away from my familiar home area. I will continue to do so and
don't understand the blanket ruling.

Chuck

Chuck

"Matthew S. Whiting" wrote in message
...
Mike Rapoport wrote:
I agree with Roy here, I would like everybody to be permitted to
evaluate
and take risks as they see fit but there is the issue of people on the
ground.

Icing is typically pretty low on the list of reasons that airplanes come
to earth in unplanned locations. Fuel mismanagement, engine failure,
etc. all rank higher. Do you and Roy think we should require every
flight to have an independent inspection of the fuel onboard before
departure? That would lower the risk to folks on the ground much more
than worrying about icing.


Matt

OK, You make a good point and I agree with you.

Mike
MU-2